I have watched the story of Malta’s attempts to solve its bird conservation problems since 2000, and tried to analyse these and offer some ideas to the Maltese government on their resolution in the form of a report in 2012, in which both Birdlife Malta and FKNK (hunters’ lobby) were consulted.

I am fully persuaded on ecological grounds that the idea of recreational hunting in spring is plainly wrong, and that the EU Birds Directive which allows it is thus fundamentally flawed. However, the fact is that it is legally possible and now likely to be a feature of Maltese life for some time, as it seems unlikely that either of the main political parties will make an election pledge to abolish it in the foreseeable future.

So where now? Both sides of the argument are now further apart than ever, one triumphant, the other deeply upset, one seeing no need to compromise, the other in no mood even to consider it. Now will seem a totally inappropriate time to advocate the pursuit of compromise and the development of a degree of mutual respect and trust.

But that is precisely what is needed. Europe’s wildlife needs co-operation between hunters and conservation bodies. Both must bury the hatchet and work together for a sustainable use within a favourable conservation status for all quarry species.

This has been happening for some time in the UK and is particularly evident, and successful, in Scotland. At the European level, there is a similar ability to discuss, seek agreement or compromise yet retain one’s independence and agenda.

Both sides should be able to agree that illegal shooting of protected species must be stamped on, and co-operate to reduce it substantially. There will never be enough police officers to watch every hunter: voluntary compliance and restraint is ultimately the surest protection for wildlife. Continued antipathy and recrimination will not encourage willingly law abiding hunters to put pressure on their less compliant colleagues.

Furthermore, the government’s policy of increasing hunting opportunities, while substantially increasing the penalties for illegal shooting, merits something in return from those benefiting from it. Being magnanimous in victory is the prerogative of the victor, and always earns respect, so having now won the popular vote, albeit by a tiny margin, is it unthinkable that the hunting lobby should make some concession?

Given the willingness to accept popular opinion as arbiter, does the recent poll (Times of Malta, April 13) suggesting about 60 per cent do not want hunting at weekends or in school holidays offer a possibility? This would be a suitable matter for the Ornis Committee to discuss, and for both sides to come, albeit reluctantly, to a compromise. That would be a historic achievement, and one the government should be willing to enact, which would herald a tentative ceasefire if not quite a truce, from which a better future might grow.

The alternative would appear to be years more of antipathy and trench warfare, in which the main casualty will be Europe’s wildlife.